Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African ...documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/...Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African Countries: The Case of

Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African

Countries: The Case of Nigeria

Milton A. Iyoha

WORKING PAPER NO.17

www.growthcommission.org

[email protected]

Commission on Growth and Development Montek AhluwaliaEdmar BachaDr. BoedionoLord John Browne Kemal DervisAlejandro FoxleyGoh Chok TongHan Duck-sooDanuta HübnerCarin JämtinPedro-Pablo KuczynskiDanny Leipziger, Vice ChairTrevor ManuelMahmoud MohieldinNgozi N. Okonjo-IwealaRobert RubinRobert SolowMichael Spence, ChairSir K. Dwight VennerErnesto ZedilloZhou Xiaochuan

The mandate of the Commission on Growth and Development is to gather the best understanding there is about the policies and strategies that underlie rapid economic growth and poverty reduction.

The Commission’s audience is the leaders of developing countries. The Commission is supported by the governments of Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and The World Bank Group.

Nigeria’s long-run growth performance has been extremely poor. Between 1960 and 2000, real income per capita grew at only 0.43 percent per year.

The situation improved between 2001 and 2006 when real per capita GDP grew at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent. This paper demonstrates that between 1960 and 2000, Nigeria’s policy choices were poor, and the reforms that sought to correct them were plagued by inconsistencies, policy reversals, and lack of coherence. In contrast, due to good leadership, the reforms adopted in 2003 were consistent and have been implemented in a coherent manner. The improved performance of the economy after 2003 arose from implementing a comprehensive economic reform program focusing on four main areas: Macroeconomic Reform; Structural Reform; Governance and Institutional Reform; and Public Sector Reform. The reforms, backstopped by improved oil revenue management, monetary policy implementa-tion, and debt management, improved overall macroeconomic policy making. This resulted in real GDP growth averaging 7.1 percent per year between 2003 and 2006, an infl ation rate of 10 percent in 2006, foreign exchange reserves of US$45 billion in 2006, and total external debt of only US$5 billion in 2006.

Milton A. Iyoha, Professor of Economics, University of Benin

Cover_WP017.indd 1Cover_WP017.indd 1 4/10/2008 6:16:03 PM4/10/2008 6:16:03 PM

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb350881

Typewritten Text

57717

WORKING PAPER NO. 17



Milton A. Iyoha

© 2008 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank On behalf of the Commission on Growth and Development 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org www.growthcommission.org E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] All rights reserved 1 2 3 4 5 11 10 09 08 This working paper is a product of the Commission on Growth and Development, which is sponsored by the following organizations: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) U.K. Department of International Development (DFID) The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The World Bank Group The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organizations or the governments they represent. The sponsoring organizations do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the sponsoring organizations concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: [email protected]. Cover design: Naylor Design

Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African Countries: The Case of Nigeria iii

About the Series

The Commission on Growth and Development led by Nobel Laureate Mike Spence was established in April 2006 as a response to two insights. First, poverty cannot be reduced in isolation from economic growth—an observation that has been overlooked in the thinking and strategies of many practitioners. Second, there is growing awareness that knowledge about economic growth is much less definitive than commonly thought. Consequently, the Commission’s mandate is to “take stock of the state of theoretical and empirical knowledge on economic growth with a view to drawing implications for policy for the current and next generation of policy makers.”

To help explore the state of knowledge, the Commission invited leading academics and policy makers from developing and industrialized countries to explore and discuss economic issues it thought relevant for growth and development, including controversial ideas. Thematic papers assessed knowledge in areas such as monetary and fiscal policies, climate change, and equity and growth and highlighted ongoing debates. Additionally, 25 country case studies were commissioned to explore the dynamics of growth and change in the context of specific countries.

Working papers in this series were presented and reviewed at Commission workshops, which were held in 2007–08 in Washington, D.C., New York City, and New Haven, Connecticut. Each paper benefited from comments by workshop participants, including academics, policy makers, development practitioners, representatives of bilateral and multilateral institutions, and Commission members.

The working papers, and all thematic papers and case studies written as contributions to the work of the Commission, were made possible by support from the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), the U.K. Department of International Development (DFID), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the World Bank Group.

The working paper series was produced under the general guidance of Mike Spence and Danny Leipziger, Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission, and the Commission’s Secretariat, which is based in the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network of the World Bank. Papers in this series represent the independent view of the authors.

iv Milton A. Iyoha

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the invaluable assistance of Susan Iyoha in researching and editing this paper. He also thanks the Commission on Growth and Development for financial assistance and useful comments on previous drafts of the paper.

Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African Countries: The Case of Nigeria v

Abstract

Nigeria’s long-run growth performance has been extremely poor. Between 1960 and 2000, real income per capita grew at only 0.43 percent per year. The situation improved between 2001 and 2006 when real per capita GDP grew at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent. This paper demonstrates that the superior growth performance during 2001–06 is largely attributable to the impact of better leadership and economic policy making. The improved performance of the economy after 2003 arose from implementing a comprehensive economic reform program focusing on four main areas: Macroeconomic Reform; Structural Reform; Governance and Institutional Reform; and Public Sector Reform. The reforms, backstopped by improved oil revenue management, monetary policy implementation, and debt management, improved overall macroeconomic policy making. This resulted in real GDP growth averaging 7.1 percent per year between 2003 and 2006, an inflation rate of 10 percent in 2006, foreign exchange reserves of US$45 billion in 2006, and total external debt of only US$5 billion in 2006.

Clearly, between 1960 and 2000, Nigeria’s policy choices were poor, and the reforms that sought to correct them were plagued by inconsistencies, policy reversals, and lack of coherence. In contrast, due to good leadership, the reforms adopted in 2003 were consistent and have been implemented in a coherent manner.

Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African Countries: The Case of Nigeria vii

Contents

About the Series ............................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgments ..........................................................................................................iv Abstract .............................................................................................................................v 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 2. Nigeria’s Economic Growth Performance, 1960–2000............................................8 3. Economic Performance in the Third Republic, 1999–2006 ...................................16 4. Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth, 1960–2006 .........................20 5. Summary and Concluding Remarks .......................................................................27 References .......................................................................................................................30

Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African Countries: The Case of Nigeria 1

Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African Countries: The Case of Nigeria Milton A. Iyoha1

1. Introduction

Nigeria’s economic performance since Independence in 1960 has been decidedly unimpressive. It is estimated that Nigeria received over US$228 billion from oil exports between 1981 and 1999 (Udeh, 2000), and yet the number of Nigerians living in abject poverty—subsisting on less than US$1 a day—more than doubled between 1970 and 2000, and the proportion of the population living in poverty rose from 36 percent to 70 percent over the same period. At official exchange rates, Nigeria’s per capita income of US$260 in 2000 was precisely one third of its level in 1980 (see World Bank, 2005). Meanwhile, during this period, Nigeria’s external debt rose almost continuously, as did the share of its GDP owed annually in debt service.

Nigeria’s story is one of missed opportunities and, more specifically, of misspent natural resource rents. Basically, Nigeria failed to surmount the two fundamental challenges generally faced by natural resource dependent economies, that is,

• addressing the culture of corruption and rent seeking created by the availability of “easy” oil rents, which reduces the incentives to create wealth by productive work; and

• managing the economy in a way to build and enhance competitiveness of the non-oil sector in the face of large inflows of oil revenues.

Thus, corruption is an important part of the story, as is a pervasive lack of transparency and accountability in governance under military dictatorships. Above all, serious mistakes have been made in macroeconomic management,

1 Milton A. Iyoha is Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics and Development Studies, Igbinedion University, Okada, Nigeria, and Dean of the College of Arts and Social Sciences. A former Research Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., Dr. Iyoha has taught at the State University of New York at Buffalo, United States, and the University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria. He has also been a Visiting Professor of Economics at the University of Lagos and the University of Botswana. Professor Iyoha’s research focuses on macroeconomic policy, growth, trade, and international development.

2 Milton A. Iyoha

notably including a Dutch-disease-generating syndrome in which policy makers erroneously treated favorable but transitory oil shocks as permanent. The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Nigeria. Nigeria’s poor economic performance during the 1960–2000 period is attributable to several political economy factors including especially:

• the dominance of military despotism in governance2 during most of the period (see table 1);

• acute regional rivalry and ethno-religious fragmentation; and • the fact that the leadership (both military and civilian) were motivated

by extreme regional bias resulting in what Fosu has dubbed an “adverse redistribution” syndrome (Fosu 2008).

These three issues are interrelated and intertwined. This chapter suggests that Nigeria’s failure to effectively harness and utilize its resource rents resulted mainly from distributional struggles between ethno-regional interests, and that imprudent macroeconomic policies in particular were motivated by the single-minded attempt by Northern political leaders to transfer resources from the Southern to the Northern part of the country. See table 2. Table 1: Executive Transitions

Year Leader Mode of assumption of office 1960 Sir. Abubakar Tafawa Balewa Elected 1963 Nnamdi Azikiwe Establishment of Republic with Azikiwe as President 1966 Johnson T.U. Aguiyi-Ironsi January 1766 Coup 1966 Yakubu Gowon July 1966 Coup 1975 Murtala Mohammed Coup 1976 Olusegun Obasanjo Coup 1979 Shehu Usman Shagari Elected 1983 Muhammadu Buhari Coup 1985 Ibrahim Babangida Coup

1993 Ernest Shonekan Selected Head of Interim National Government in August 1993

1993 Sani Abacha Palace Coup in November 1993 due to the declaration of interim national government unconstitutional by a Federal High Court

1998 Abdulsalam Abubakar Selected due mainly to unexpected demise of the former leader, Sani Abacha

1999 Olusegun Obasanjo Elected 2003 Olusegun Obasanjo Elected 2007 Umaru Musa Yar’Adua Elected Source: Compiled by the author, 2008.

2 A careful examination of the economic outcomes shows that Nigeria does not fit well into the “Structural Model” of “The Logic of Authoritarian Bargains” proposed by Desai, Olofsgard, and Yousef (2007). In Nigeria’s case, there was little or no economic gain to compensate for the political rights relinquished to the military dictators.


Table 2: Regional Bias in Oil Revenue Allocation

Nigerian leaders Notable actions on oil revenue sharing

Alhaji Tafawa Balewa (1957–66)

Supported the construction of the first Port Harcourt Refinery by Shell B.P. in 1965. Established several industries in the Northern part of Nigeria (Funtua Seed Cotton Mill, Arewa Textile Mill, and so forth).

General J.T. Aguyi-Ironsi (1966) No notable action.

General Yakubu Gown (1966–75)

Yakubu Gowon Dam in Kano. Established the Volkswagen and Peugeot Plants in Lagos and Kaduna. Responsible for the construction of dual road network across the country. Built the National Stadium and the National Arts Theater in Lagos. Carved out 12 States from the original 4 regions in 1967. Established the Nigerian Agricultural Bank with headquarters in the North. Seized the offshore oil and made it federal property without regard to state of location.

General Ramat Murtala Muhammed (1975–76)

Created additional 7 states out of the existing 12 to make 19 in 1976. Set up the machinery for the movement of the Federal Capital Territory from Lagos to Abuja. Completed the Fertilizer Plant in Kaduna.

General Olusegun Obasanjo (1975–79)

Initiated the construction of the Ajaokuta Steel Company, Delta Steel Company, Aladja, and established the Oshogbo Steel Rolling Mill, Nigerian Machine Tools Limited, Oshogbo, and the Katsina and Jos Steel Rolling Mills. Ensured the takeoff of the Warri Refinery in 1978. Reduced the 50 percent oil royalties and rents due to the state of origin from 50 to 30 percent.

Alhaji Shehu Shagari (1979–83)

Established the Aluminum Smelter Company of Nigeria at Ikot Abasi in 1983 to make up for several industries located in the North by his administration, including the Kaduna refinery, which started operation in 1980. Completed an additional steel plant and 3 rolling mills at Ajaokuta. Reduced the share of oil royalties and rents to state of origin from 30 to 2 percent.

General Muhammadu Buhari (1984–85)

Probed and detained several corrupt military governors and ministers. Reduced the share of oil royalties and rents to state of origin from 2 to 1.5 percent.

General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida (1985–93)

Increased the share of oil royalties and rents to state of origin from 1.5 to 3 percent. Established the Oil Mineral Producing Area Development Commission (OMPADEC) in 1992. Established the Federal Environmental Protection Agency in 1985, with headquarters at Abuja. Created two additional states (Akwa Ibom and Katsina) and several local government councils. Built Toja Bridge in Kebbi, established Jibia Water Treatment Plant and the Challawa Cenga Dam in Kano. Moved the seat of the federal government to Abuja on the 12th of December 1991. Annulled June 12 election results. Commissioned Ajaokuta Steel Company. Introduced the SAP in 1986. Created 11 more states with a bias towards the North.

Chief Ernest Shonekan (August 1993–November 1993)

No notable action.

(Table continues on next page)

4 Milton A. Iyoha

Table 2 (continued)

Nigerian leaders Notable actions on oil revenue sharing

General Sanni Abacha (1993–98)

Created six new states and 181 new local government councils with a heavy bias towards the north on December 5, 1996. Looted the Nigerian Treasury; initiated the vision 2010 economic blueprint for Nigeria; promulgated Decree No. 18 in 1994 to enhance the trial of the executives of failed banks.

General Abdusalam Abubakar (1998–99)

Granted autonomy to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in the formulation and implementation of monetary policies. Established the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) and facilitated the handover of power to a civilian administration in 1999.

Chief Olusegun Obasanjo (1999–2007)

Established the Niger Delta Development Commission and increased the 3 percent for oil-producing states from the federation account to 13 percent to enhance development and solve ecological problems. Introduced the Universal Basic Education Program (UBE) to enhance the literacy level of Nigerians. Introduced the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission to check fraudulent financial activities of Nigerians. Resuscitated the National Fertilizer Company (NAFCOM) in Kaduna and (Onne) Port Harcourt.

Source: Iyoha and Oriakhi (2008).

Note that in the 1960s, the economy had relied heavily on export-driven primitive agriculture, small-to-medium scale manufacturing, and petty trading. However, with crude oil becoming the dominant product in Nigeria’s exports, political elites and their administrations failed to harness the receipts from oil for a proper diversification of the export base of the economy. Instead they engaged in capital flight (see table 3 for details) and massive importation of consumer goods, to the detriment of the balance-of-payments position. Table 3: Capital Flight, 1972–89

Year Capital flight

(in millions of dollars) Year Capital flight

(in millions of dollars) 1972 106.4 1981 2,132.3 1973 636.1 1982 –3,805.8 1974 325.0 1983 2,016.1 1975 119.8 1984 –169.8 1976 124.8 1985 3,569.4 1977 2,490.0 1986 5,502.9 1978 508.4 1987 5,814.6 1979 –86.3 1988 1,043.8 1980 2,713.3 1989 –2,997.0

Total 1972–89: 32,801.3 Source: Ajayi (2000, p 232).


Ethnic affiliations and nepotism acted over time to constrain the growth process: between 1960 and 2000, the majority of leaders directed their attention to the diversion of state resources—public investments, infrastructure improvements, public-sector employment—to the regions that constituted their political base. This phenomenon is central to the political instability that has been a permanent feature in Nigeria since the 1960s, with dire consequences including the discouragement of foreign investment and the encouragement of capital flight and brain drain.

The continued importance of oil rents in Nigeria’s economy mirrors their importance as a flash point for political conflict. Nigeria is a striking example of what Sachs and Warner (2001) have labelled the “natural resource curse”: the systematic tendency for narrowly specialized primary commodity exporters to grow more slowly than countries with more diversified exports. Where did Nigeria’s natural resource rents end up, if not as productive domestic investments capable of supporting economic growth? One answer is in capital flight: virtually all the former military rulers amassed huge fortunes in foreign bank accounts. It can indeed be argued that the political environment of military rule rewarded rent-seeking activities, bribery, and corruption.

Another answer is that domestic investment, particularly by the public sector, was often highly inefficient. Ethnic rivalries encouraged Northern political elites to ignore the Southern part of the country, where oil resources originate, in favor of developing the North. In pursuance of this goal, many costly mistakes were made regarding the location of investment projects. The leaders appeared to be unduly interested in redistribution of resources. Redistribution, of course, could be favorable to growth—especially in cases where it reduces polarization. However, its effect might be perverse if it increased polarization, especially in cases where government officials used redistribution as a mechanism to reward their cronies or regional constituencies that were often ethnically defined. This latter form, adverse redistribution, could be vertical as well.

This is what happened in Nigeria between 1960 and 2000 when the incumbent governments engaged in adverse redistribution as a mechanism of shoring up their respective power bases, usually based on ethnicity. It may therefore be postulated that Nigeria perfectly illustrates the challenges of natural resource management under conditions of ex ante ethno-regional polarization. As emphasized by Iyoha and Oriakhi (2008), Nigeria rushed to independence as an uneasy federation of a militarily powerful but economically weak interior (the North) and two smaller coastal regions, each home to a dominant ethnic group.3

3 Nigeria is composed of more than 250 ethnic groups; the following are the most populous and politically influential: Hausa and Fulani 29 percent, Yoruba 21 percent, Igbo (Ibo) 18 percent, Ijaw 10 percent, Kanuri 4 percent, Ibibio 3.5 percent, and Tiv 2.5 percent. There are three dominant ethno-linguistic groups: Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo, which account for 68 percent of the total population. In terms of geographical location, the Hausa/Fulani live in the North while the Yorubas

6 Milton A. Iyoha

Oil hardened regional political identities, replacing the North’s development agenda with one of continued political domination and placing issues of revenue allocation at the center of political competition—to the detriment of economic growth. This point has also been forcefully made by Suberu (2001). Relying on the communiqué of a major national conference on Nigerian federalism, Suberu (2001, p. 9) concluded that Nigeria’s federal system was perched precariously on a “weak productive base” due to the preoccupation of local, religious, and ethno-regional interests with redistributing a shrinking national cake rather than producing a bigger one. According to him, ethno-regional conflict continues to express itself in a wide variety of ways, including ongoing debates over the rules for intergovernmental sharing of revenues; calls for further subdivision (or amalgamation) of the 36-state structure; frequent repudiation of population census figures that appear to favor a particular section of the country; and debates over the “federal character principle,” which constitutionally mandates the equitable representation of states in federal public services and institutions.

A common feature of these struggles is the tension they bring out between politically motivated redistribution and economic efficiency. Several reasons have been adduced, for example, for requiring roughly proportional representation of states in some important political positions and in recruitment into the senior echelons of the federal Civil Service: a leading one is the relative educational backwardness of the northern part of the Nigerian Federation. However, while this imbalance provided an equity rationale for educational investment in the North, the argument for proportional recruitment seems clearly weaker given its potentially discouraging effect both on bureaucratic efficiency and on educational investment within Nigeria as a whole. As this example suggests, distributional conflict has acted over time to reduce the drive for growth and development of the Nigerian economy, both directly, via the misallocation of existing resources (and their wastage via court cases, work stoppages, and ethnic clashes), and indirectly, via the undermining of incentives for productive new investment. Economic Outcomes. Nigeria’s long-run growth performance has been extremely poor. For the 1960–2000 period, real income per capita grew at only 0.43 percent per year at constant domestic prices (figure 1). The importance of economic growth for poverty reduction has been established by numerous empirical studies and has recently been underscored by the phenomenal progress of China and other countries in East Asia and Pacific region. In Nigeria, the consequence of long-run stagnation in average income was a sharp

and Igbos live in the South (with the Yorubas occupying the Southwest and the Igbos the Southeast coastal areas). In terms of religious breakdown, Muslims account for 50 percent of the population, Christians for 40 percent, and indigenous practitioners for 10 percent. The Hausa/Fulani are mainly Muslims while the Yorubas and Igbos are mainly Christians.


cumulative increase in poverty, both in terms of absolute numbers and as a share of the overall population.

As indicated in figure 1 and table 4, Nigeria’s long-run stagnation has occurred in a context of acute short- to medium-run volatility. Nigeria was a poor country at independence in 1960, with a per capita income in constant 2000 U.S. dollars of less than $250 at official exchange rates (about $1,000 in PPP-adjusted terms). Real per capita income rose impressively between 1960 and the mid-1970s, with the exception of a brief but sharp interruption immediately before and during the civil war of 1967–70. In the mid-1970s, income fluctuated with little overall trend, but then it plummeted in 1981 with the onset of an acute economic crisis. Between 1981 and 1984, real output fell at an annual average rate of nearly 6 percent. The Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) adopted in 1986 brought about temporary relief, with real growth averaging over 5 percent per year between 1988 and 1990. The 1990s, however, witnessed nearly complete stagnation, with average income growing at a rate of less than half a percentage point per year.

Note that while the growth rate of real income per capita averaged 0.43 percent between 1960 and 2000, it averaged a robust 3.4 percent between 2001 and 2006, and the average growth rate of real per capita income was an outstanding 4.2 percent between 2003 and 2006. The first decade of the twenty-first century therefore showed an unprecedented growth spurt in Nigeria. Accordingly, these years will be studied carefully in this chapter in order to determine the roles played by leadership, policy making, the quality of economic policies, and institutions. Figure 1: Real GDP per capita, 1960–2000

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

1996

US

$

PPP-adjusted Constant local currency (rebased) Source: World Bank (2006c).

8 Milton A. Iyoha

Table 4: Per Capita Real Income in US$ Dollars and Its Growth Rate

Pre-liberalization era Economic liberalization era Democratic era

Year Level Growth

rate Year Level Growth

rate Year Level Growth

rate 1965 318.60 — 1987 287.70 –3.59 2001 338.0 1.9 1966 297.00 –6.78 1988 307.20 6.78 2002 359.0 1.8 1967 243.60 –17.98 1989 320.02 4.17 2003 438.0 6.8 1968 234.20 –3.86 1990 336.50 5.15 2004 528.0 3.8 1969 283.05 20.86 1991 342.64 1.82 2005 653.0 3.4 1970 344.30 21.64 1992 342.60 –0.01 2006 808.0 3.3 1971 382.60 11.12 1993 340.10 –0.73 1972 384.70 0.55 1994 330.60 –2.79 1973 394.20 2.47 1995 328.90 –0.51 1974 425.95 8.05 1996 333.40 1.37 1975 392.20 –7.92 1997 333.20 –0.06 1976 415.45 5.93 1998 330.60 –0.78 1977 427.67 2.94 1999 325.90 –1.42 1978 391.10 –8.55 2000 331.60 1.75 1979 404.99 3.55 1980 409.18 1.03 1981 344.51 –15.80 1982 332.96 –3.35 1983 305.50 –8.25 1984 281.83 –7.75 1985 299.90 6.41 1986 298.40 -0.50

Source: World Bank (2005).

The next section of this chapter will examine Nigeria’s economic growth

performance between 1960 and 2000, with special emphasis on the reasons for the dismal record. Section III will investigate the reasons for the rapid growth during the 2001–06 period. Particular attention will be given to the economic reform program of the Obasanjo administration and the specific policies implemented will be discussed. Also, the key role of leadership will be highlighted. In section IV, the analysis will be devoted to a further study of the roles played by leadership, policymaking, the quality of policies, learning, and institutions in the growth outcomes of the entire period. The last section provides a summary of the chapter and some concluding remarks.

2. Nigeria’s Economic Growth Performance, 1960–2000

This section begins by examining the impact of investment on income growth during the 1960–2000 period.


Aggregate Investment. Figure 2 shows the ratio of investment to GDP in Nigeria for the years under study. A comparison of figures 1 and 2 shows a distinct co-movement of real GDP per capita with the aggregate investment share. Both variables fall sharply during the civil war and again, after a protracted boom, during the economic crisis of the early 1980s. Consistent with the dominant share of the public sector in total investment, revenues from oil exports seem to have served as an extremely powerful driver of the overall investment rate. Since investment has a domestically produced component, changes in the investment share affect growth both from the demand side and from the supply side. Short-run aggregate demand effects of oil-financed investment are readily apparent in figure 1. Sustained impacts on productive capacity, in contrast, are less evident, consistent with severe inefficiencies in the allocation of domestic investment, documented below.

In order to fully explain the economic events of the 1960–2000 period, it was found desirable to split the period into two subperiods, with the line of demarcation given by the initiation of major economic reforms under the aegis of the 1986 SAP. We refer to these periods as the pre-liberalization era (1960–86) and the economic liberalization era (1987–2000).

The central objective of Nigeria’s SAP was to restructure and diversify the productive base of the economy in order to reduce dependence on the oil sector and on imports. The main SAP measures included:

• deregulation of the exchange rate, • trade liberalization, • deregulation of the financial sector,

Figure 2: Investment as a Share of GDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Per

cent

Ratio of nominal values Ratio of real values (rebased) Source: World Bank (2006c).

10 Milton A. Iyoha

• rationalization and privatization of public sector enterprises, and • adoption of appropriate domestic pricing policies (by eliminating

subsidies) especially for petroleum products. (Federal Government of Nigeria, 1986.)

Originally planned to last for only two years (July 1986 to June 1988), the SAP period was extended several times to allow for the phased introduction of the requisite policy reforms and provide a period within which results could come to fruition. In policy analysis, therefore, the SAP epoch is now generally taken to cover the period from 1987 to 1992. Unfortunately, the SAP did not deliver all the benefits its protagonists promised. Deregulation and liberalization improved conditions for agriculture and led to positive developments in the financial sector; and to an economic growth spurt during the first few years of SAP. But, as of the early 1990s, there was little evidence that reforms had transformed the overall climate for growth. Indeed, overall economic growth differed only marginally between the two periods, amounting to 0.18 percent during the period of economic controls and 0.80 percent during the liberalization era. Additionally there was a drastic fall in public sector employment, which served to lower the welfare of the citizenry. However, it should be noted that, as indicated in figure 1 and table 4, the intertemporal pattern of growth differs markedly—with the first period characterized by a massive boom and bust cycle and the second by protracted stagnation following an initial burst of growth. However, while 1986/87 marks the outset of a cumulatively substantial reorientation of economic policy in Nigeria, the legacies of the earlier period, combined with the continued realities of political conflict in Nigeria, prevented any fundamental transformation of the growth environment through the end of the century.

As already mentioned, the continued importance of oil rents in Nigeria’s economy mirrors their importance as a flash point for political, ethnic, and regional conflict. Nigeria is indeed a remarkable example of what Sachs and Warner (2001) have labeled the “natural resource curse,” that is, the systematic tendency for countries highly dependent on the exportation of a single primary commodity to grow more slowly than countries with more diversified exports. Given Nigeria’s peculiar circumstances, it turned out that a significant proportion of Nigeria’s natural resource rents ended up in capital flight4 since virtually all the former military rulers amassed huge fortunes in foreign bank accounts. Also, it turned out that domestic investment, particularly by the public sector, was often highly inefficient. Ethnic rivalries encouraged Northern political elites to ignore the Southern part of the country, where oil resources originate, in favor of developing their constituencies in the Northern part of the country, albeit inefficiently. Thus, in pursuance of this ethnic and sectional goal,

4 Data given by Ajayi (2000) shows that between 1972 and 1989 capital flight from Nigeria amounted to US$32.8 billion. For yearly amounts, see table 3.


many costly mistakes were made regarding the location of investment projects. Some examples of these are the Ajaokuta Steel Mill and the Kaduna refinery. Periodization. In what follows we split the 1960–2000 period into two subperiods, with the line of demarcation given by the initiation of major economic reforms under the aegis of the 1987 SAP. We refer to these periods as the pre-liberalization era (1960–86) and the economic liberalization era (1987–2000). For each of the two major subperiods, we undertake a detailed study of the determinants of growth performance, focusing in turn on economic policies and outcomes at the macroeconomic and sectoral levels, the changing institutional organization of key markets, the response of microeconomic agents to the policy environment, and the political economy of policy and governance.

Nigeria’s Growth Performance: 1960–86 The pre-economic liberalization period was characterized by what Collier and O’Connell (2006) call “soft controls”, reflecting direct government intervention in prices and often quantities in key markets throughout the economy. National planning was in the ascendancy, with rapid economic development to be brought about through a series of fixed-term National Development Plans. During the pre–civil war period, growth in per capita income was moderate, driven by agricultural exports (mainly cocoa, groundnuts, palm oil, and rubber) and the massive drawdown of foreign exchange reserves and Marketing Board surpluses accumulated during the Korean War agricultural export boom of the 1950s. Growth accelerated sharply after the civil war, driven mainly by petroleum exports, but then, as we have seen, collapsed under the weight of falling oil prices during the first half of the 1980s.

Oil already accounted for 57.5 percent of total exports in 1970, but by 1977, it accounted for 93.3 percent (Iyoha, 1995). During the boom, balance of payments surpluses and buoyant government revenues led to a major expansion in government expenditures, including capital expenditures. Commendably, much of the federal government’s recurrent spending during the 1970s went into educational expansion. The Western and Eastern regions had already introduced Universal Primary Education (UPE) to the Southern parts of the country, but during this period the Northern region introduced free primary and secondary education and even adopted a program of awarding overseas scholarships to its indigenes. The percentage of the federal government budget devoted to education was between 5 percent and 10 percent in the 1970s as compared to less than 1 percent committed by the colonial government (Central Bank of Nigeria, 2002). The number of federally owned universities expanded from one to six during the period.

Investment, and particularly public investment, rose very sharply during this period: in 1976, the aggregate investment-income ratio was an impressive 31.5 percent while the public investment-income ratio amounted to 24.4 percent.

12 Milton A. Iyoha

The absence of sustained growth in the Nigerian economy despite these high investment rates is partly traceable to the inefficiency of the public sector’s investment response. As Bevan et al. (1992, p. 2) observe, the public investment response was intertemporally inefficient both in terms of its ultimate magnitude and in terms of the domestic investments undertaken. The ideal response to an export price boom is to invest the proceeds in income-earning assets abroad and to repatriate them only as the economy develops domestic investment projects with a social rate of return at least as high as that of the nation’s overseas portfolio. Nigerian policy makers succeeded initially in accumulating international reserves, but public investment programs were then pushed rapidly and with little concern for efficiency. Policy makers fell prey to a vision of import-substituting industrialization that was already discredited at the time, allocating vast sums to public sector megaprojects (including two steel mills built at a cost of some US$11 billion) that were never able to compete in world markets.

While this period was dominated (from the civil war forwards) by military rule, the brief periods of civilian rule in between—1979 and 1983—did not bring greater coherence to economic policy in Nigeria. Instead, while military administrators had depended heavily on the civil service to initiate and implement economic policies, the civilian administration of President Shehu Shagari saw a drastic reduction in the powers of the civil service and an increase in rent-seeking activity. Maximization of political support through patronage became the order of the day. Patronage was made easier by increasing the number of states and by failing to enforce legal rules against corruption. Kickbacks appear to have increased the costs of investment projects dramatically: the contract for the construction of a dam, for example, which had been concluded by the military government for US$120 million, was renegotiated by the civilian government for US$600 million (Bevan et al., 1992, p. 8).

Over the full period of the oil boom, the excessive and highly inefficient public investment response is consistent with successive governments having viewed the boom as effectively permanent. Bevan et al. (1992) observe that it was not until after the fall of oil revenues in 1980/81 that the Nigerian government recognized the transitory nature of the shock. But during the period of military government, the public investment strategy reflected in addition the capital-accumulation dogma of the civil service, while during the civilian period public investment became a focal point for patronage and corruption. Thus, throughout the period, the oil-financed investment boom contributed little to the underlying growth process of the economy.

Nigeria’s Growth Performance: 1987–2000 The SAP and post-SAP periods were marked by deregulation and economic liberalization. However, the success of market liberalization was constrained throughout by haphazard implementation, frequent policy reversals, weak


institutions, and the regional redistribution syndrome. Thus, in spite of a determined effort to deregulate and liberalize both the real and financial sectors of the economy, the average rate of economic growth barely exceeded that of the pre-liberalization period.

The performance of the manufacturing sector was extremely poor during this subperiod. While weak growth in domestic aggregate demand may have played some role, the more fundamental problem appears to be a consistent failure to meet price and quality competition from imports at the more modest levels of protection afforded by post-liberalization policies. The high price of domestic manufactures reflects, among other influences, inordinately high energy costs, inefficient and old equipment, and inadequate infrastructure. Other constraints that have been identified as militating against output growth are the incidents of civil and religious disturbances in some parts of the country, as well as the general insecurity of lives and property arising from banditry and armed robbery (Central Bank of Nigeria, 2002). The issue of poor infrastructure, however, bears particular emphasis. Electricity supply is erratic and unreliable, with frequent power outages, load shedding, and power rationing. The erratic nature of the power supply has forced high-income households and businesses to purchase generators at prohibitive initial and operating costs. The failure of infrastructural services extends to the areas of water supply and telecommunications. All these have implications for the cost of producing manufactured goods and by extension the competitiveness of domestic industry.

The SAP introduced in 1986 constituted the institutional framework for the design and application of trade and commercial policies for a substantial part of the 1987–2000 period. The government abolished Commodity Boards and deregulated the pricing and marketing of agricultural commodities. The import and export licensing system was also abolished and the number of import-prohibited items reduced. In 1988, the desire to provide a more stable and predictable tariff regime prompted the introduction of tariff reform. Hence, a tariff structure expected to last seven years was initiated. A variety of incentives were introduced to promote nonoil exports and foreign direct investment, including duty and tax concessions.

Toward the end of the 1980s, the continuation of economic distress led to the introduction of a new set of reform-oriented measures, some of which were a direct reversal of measures introduced under the SAP. Selected crops and their derivatives were placed under an export prohibition list, in order to lower food prices and stimulate the output of agro-allied industries. The 1988 tariff reform was reversed before its seven-year expiration period, through amendments implemented in 1989, 1990, and 1991. In 1994, the Abacha government pegged the exchange rate at N22 to US$1, a direct reversal of the move to a market-determined exchange rate. These policy reversals (possibly triggered by political pressure from vested interests that had lost windfalls they formerly gained from

14 Milton A. Iyoha

rent-seeking under the regime of controls) acted over time to undermine the supply response to economic reforms.

From the early 1980s to the inception of the SAP in 1986, it became obvious that the agricultural sector could not keep up with domestic demands for food and raw materials. In addition to creating of the Directorate for Foods, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) in 1986, the government developed an agricultural policy as a part of a sectoral Perspective Plan up to the year 2005. The Perspective Plan stressed the introduction of financial policy measures to improve credit allocation to the agricultural sector, and in pursuance of this objective, new financial institutions were established, including Community Banks and the Peoples Bank of Nigeria. The removal of price distortions under the SAP, however, probably had the greatest responsibility for the revival of agricultural production after 1986. Aggregate output of the agricultural sector grew by 7.5 percent per year between 1986 and 1996, a rate significantly higher than during the pre-SAP period.

In the attempt to correct “government failures” in the agricultural sector, SAP policies and measures apparently paid less attention to the possibility of market failures. Thus although SAP reforms greatly reduced the output price distortions facing Nigeria’s farmers, they also removed government input subsidies to the sector—subsidies that may have been justifiable as a means of encouraging the adoption and diffusion of yield-enhancing technologies (for example, seed varieties intensive in fertilizer).

The SAP introduced broad-based regulatory and institutional reforms in the financial sector with a view to deregulating the system and creating a level playing field for the growth and development of financial institutions, markets, and instruments. In 1992, bank-by-bank credit ceilings were lifted and replaced by Open Market Operations as the primary method of monetary management. Interest rates, which had previously been administratively fixed, were left to market forces through the removal of all controls on bank deposit and lending rates. Though controls were reintroduced in 1991 and between 1994 and 1996, interest rates on deposit and lending were decontrolled again in October 1996. In 1997, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) was vested with the control and supervision of all commercial, merchant, and community banks; the Peoples Bank of Nigeria; finance companies; discount houses; primary mortgage institutions; bureau de change; and all Development Banks. In 1988, the Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) was established to complement the regulatory and supervisory role of the CBN. It was set up to provide deposit insurance and related services for banks, in order to promote confidence in the banking industry. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which had been established in 1979, was strengthened by the SEC Decree of 1988 to perform its role of effective promotion of an orderly and active capital market.

Other major changes in the Nigerian financial system during the 1987–2000 period include the promulgation of the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debt) and


Financial Malpractices in Banks Decree No. 18 of 1994, aimed at prosecuting those who contributed to the failure of banks and to recover the debt owed to the failed banks. In 1994, the CBN inaugurated the Financial Services Regulatory Coordinating Committee (FSRCC) to coordinate and standardize the regulatory policies of all financial institutions in the system and evolve some cooperation among regulatory agencies. In 1995, three decrees to further regulate the financial system were promulgated. These were the Money Laundering Decree No. 3; the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Decree No. 16; and the Foreign Exchange (Monitoring and Miscellaneous Provisions) Decree No. 17, which established an autonomous foreign exchange market.

Financial sector reforms during this period led to the expansion of the number of banks and financial institutions. They also significantly reduced government domination of the capital market and enhanced its capitalization. The value of new issues of securities rose steadily, from N399.9 million in 1988 to N10,814.0 million in 1997. This gives an average annual rate of growth of 36.6 percent in nominal terms. However, given that the average annual rate of inflation was 36.9 percent during the subperiod, there was hardly any growth in the value of new issues in real terms. Also, the number of listed securities increased from 180 in 1985 to 264 in 1997. In spite of the increase in the number of banks in the economy, however, the ratio of savings to GDP declined steadily over much of the liberalization period, from 16.0 percent in 1988 to 7.8 percent in 1997. At least through the early 1990s (see figure 2), investment remained below its levels in the early 1970s. The basic structure of the financial system changed very little, as commercial banks continued to dominate institutionalized savings, providing about 80 percent of total savings. Despite some progress, the overall performance of the Nigerian financial system was not impressive, especially with the many cases of bank distress reported between 1989 and 1996. The number of banks classified as distressed increased from 8 to 52 and the licenses of 5 banks were revoked. The CBN also took over the management of 17 distressed banks in 1995 and one in 1996.

In recognition of the lack of access to credit by many who sought to be self-employed, the federal government introduced a policy to liberalize access to credit. To this end, the Peoples Bank of Nigeria was established in October 1989 while the Community Banks were established in 1990. Other programs introduced to boost employment include the National Directorate of Employment (NDE) and Mass Agricultural Projects (MAP) in seven states of the Federation in 1993. Also, the Family Economic Advancement Program (FEAP) was introduced in 1997 to empower locally based producers of goods and services and potential entrepreneurs in the cottage industries through the provision of loans, training, and the acquisition of skills.

With the adoption of SAP, the foreign exchange market was completely liberalized and the exchange rate largely left to market forces. To enhance the smooth operation of the foreign exchange market, bureau de change offices were

16 Milton A. Iyoha

introduced in 1989 to handle small-scale foreign exchange transactions based on funds from unofficial sources. Possibly succumbing to pressure from vested interests whose opportunities for rent-seeking had been blocked by the reforms, the Abacha government reversed exchange-rate reforms and pegged the naira for a wide range of transactions starting in 1994. In 1995, the government formalized its reversal by adopting a policy of “guided deregulation.” Given ongoing Nigerian inflation, foreign exchange available at the pegged rate was increasingly overvalued, and the black market premium skyrocketed. The exchange rate remained effectively pegged until 1998, although restrictions on external payments began to be lifted even in advance of the devaluation of 1999.

The Babangida administration introduced the SAP in 1986 and was responsible for its initial implementation. The efforts of this administration were hampered by continuous declines in oil revenues and increases in external debt, but also by its commitment to an unending program of political transition. The quality and consistency of economic policy management declined sharply. The government yielded to domestic political pressures, and despite repeated official pronouncements that it would continue with reforms, could not sustain the original objectives of the SAP. Ad hoc policies were implemented instead, to meet short-term expediencies. The most serious issue was irresponsible fiscal behavior, primarily in the form of excessive spending—mainly to shore up dwindling political support and pacify its constituency. The early 1990s were thus characterized by rising fiscal deficits, increasing poverty, and mounting discontent, a situation that resulted in several anti-SAP protests, riots, and strikes. The SAP led to a major decline in expenditure on the social sector and created a new class of the poor. It forced down capacity utilization in industry, from an average annual rate of 53.1 percent between 1981 and 1985 to 39.8 percent between 1986 and 1993. It may also have contributed to the widespread distress in the banking system, which destroyed the confidence of the public in the financial system and caused hardships to bank customers (Iyoha, 1996).

3. Economic Performance in the Third Republic, 1999–2006

For the first two years after the return to democratic rule in 1999, the Nigerian economy continued to report poor overall economic performance, contrary to the hopes and expectations of Nigerians, donor partners, and the entire international community. It was widely expected that with the dawn of democratic revival in Nigeria, economic growth would resume and accelerate, leading to significant reduction in poverty. Unfortunately, this did not immediately happen and economic growth continued to be lackluster and unprepossessing. Indeed, the poor growth performance of the economy during the first two years of President Obasanjo’s first term made it clear that fundamental economic reforms were


warranted. Additionally, in the new millennium, it became necessary to make a concerted attempt to actualize the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Thus, starting from 2001, government began to introduce economic reforms. In 2003, having consolidated his political position and keen to deliver the “dividends of democracy,” the president decided to formalize, systematize, and intensify the reform program. His government therefore began to implement a comprehensive reform program known as the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS).

Nigeria’s Growth Performance, 2001–06 According to the document issued by the Nigerian government, NEEDS is a nationally coordinated framework of action in collaboration with the state and local governments and other stakeholders to reduce poverty. Indeed, NEEDS is Nigeria’s homegrown equivalent of a World Bank poverty reduction strategy. In effect, the State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS) of each state of the Federation are to be coordinated with NEEDS as a weapon to reduce poverty and underdevelopment in the country. In addition to the state and local governments, the implementation of NEEDS will be predicated on a close collaboration and coordination between the federal government and donor agencies, the private sector, civil society, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). As articulated by the Nigerian authorities, poverty reduction is the core objective of NEEDS. Accordingly, NEEDS includes interventions and policies aimed at poverty reduction and the policies are intended to benefit virtually all segments of the Nigerian society.

NEEDS also encompasses important structural reforms designed to enhance the transparency and accountability of public sector policies and institutions. In the process, it is expected that many deep-rooted macroeconomic and structural challenges will be addressed in order to restore macroeconomic stability and promote rapid and sustainable economic growth. The NEEDS document declares that the strategy is to be implemented by creating a conducive environment for business and foreign investment so as to ensure a partnership between the public and private sectors for growth. In particular, government’s attention is to be focused on the provision of basic services and empowering the generality of Nigerians to take advantage of new livelihood opportunities while encouraging the private sector to become the engine of growth in the economy. People empowerment will especially focus on the areas of health, education, the environment, integrated rural development, housing, employment, gender mainstreaming, and youth development.

18 Milton A. Iyoha

NEEDS has also become an umbrella organization for the various poverty eradication programs established by the Obasanjo administration since its inception in 1999. Chief among these programs is the National Poverty Eradication Program (NAPEP), which was established in 1999. The objectives of NAPEP include:

• poverty eradication; • economic empowerment of the citizenry, especially women; • provision of skill acquisition for youths and reduction of unemployment

among youths; • provision of Universal Basic Education to all Nigerians; • revitalization of agriculture as a means of raising the incomes of rural

dwellers; and • provision of motorable roads in rural areas to enhance evacuation of

produce to markets.

To summarize, the comprehensive reform programs have been implemented in four main areas: Macroeconomic Reform; Structural Reform; Governance and Institutional Reform; and Public Sector Reform. Under the Macroeconomic Reform Program, government adopted prudent oil price–based fiscal rule; introduced a Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and a Medium-Term Sector Strategie (MTSS); improved implementation of monetary policy by Central Bank; undertook a bank consolidation exercise to strengthen financial sector; adopted trade liberalization policies; and undertook the privatization of some government enterprises. Under the Structural Reform Program, there has been a bank consolidation exercise to strengthen financial sector; trade liberalization reform; deregulation of the economy; and privatization of some government enterprises. Under Institutional and Governance Reforms, the government introduced the Due Process mechanism in public procurement; adopted the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Nigeria; and established the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) to address corruption in public offices. Under the Public Sector Reforms, there has been a restructuring of some government agencies and an increased focus on improving service delivery; an anti-corruption drive; and civil service reform. For a more detailed discussion of the economic and structural reforms adopted, see Okonjo-Iweala and Osafo-Kwaako (2007).

It should be pointed out that improvement in oil revenue management and monetary policy implementation was complemented by better debt management strategies. In particular, the erstwhile stubborn problem of external debt overhang was successfully resolved. During the 2003–06 period, Nigeria’s external debt stock was drastically reduced.


Arising largely from a successful debt relief agreement with the Paris Club of creditors, Nigeria’s external debt stock fell dramatically from US$35.9 billion in 2004 to approximately US$5.5 billion in 2005, after a comprehensive debt relief package on its US$30.4 billion Paris Club debt. As explained by Okonjo-Iweala and Osafo-Kwaako (2007, p. 11), the unprecedented debt relief package involved payment of outstanding arrears of US$6.4 billion, a debt write-off of US$16 billion, and a debt buyback of the remaining US$8 billion (at a 25 percent discount) for US$6 billion.

The improvement in macroeconomic policy making in the post-2003 period has started to yield identifiable dividends. Real GDP growth has improved, averaging 7.1 percent per year since 2003. Similarly, inflation has improved, falling from over 20 percent in 2003 to below 10 percent in 2006. Foreign exchange reserves have skyrocketed from about US$7 billion in 2002 to approximately US$45 billion in 2006, while total external debt fell from US$35 billion in 2003 to under US$5 billion in 2006 (table 5). Since 2003, the nonoil sector, which provides livelihoods for the majority of Nigerians, has grown at 5.9 percent annually, accelerating to 7.4 percent in 2004 and to 8.2 percent in 2005. In 2006, the growth rate of the nonoil sector reached 8.9 percent. Growth of the nonoil sector has been largely driven by growth in agriculture and the global commodity boom. FDI inflows into the country have ballooned, exceeding US$5.16 billion in 2005 (table 6). Foreign investment has occurred not only in oil and gas but also in the telecommunications, transportation, and banking sectors. It can be convincingly argued that the relaxation of the external debt constraint brought about by the Paris Club debt relief package has contributed to the observed increase FDI inflows and portfolio flows. Table 5: Economic Performance Indicators, 2001–06

For the year ending December 31 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Real GDP 4.7 4.6 9.9 6.6 6.2 5.6 Oil sector 5.2 (5.7) 23.9 3.3 0.5 4.7 Nonoil sector 4.5 8.3 5.2 7.8 8.2 8.9 Oil production 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 Gross national savings

(% of GDP) 5.3 3.5 7.2 18.4 19.4 20.6

Inflation rate (Dec-over-Dec) 16.5 12.2 23.8 10.0 11.6 8.5 GDP per capita (US$) 530.7 539.1 620.7 673.0 847.1 1,114.0 Population (million) 118.8 122.4 126.2 129.9 133.5 140.0 Population growth rate (%) 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.3 Life expectancy at birth

(years) 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 55.0

Adult literacy rate (%) 57.0 57.0 57.0 62.0 62.0 67.0 Source: Central Bank of Nigeria.

20 Milton A. Iyoha

Table 6: Nigeria—Foreign Investment Inflows, 2001–06

Year Foreign direct investment

US$ (billions) Portfolio investment

US$ (billions) 2001 1.18 0.827 2002 1.87 0.134 2003 2.00 0.147 2004 1.87 0.350 2005 2.30 2.860 2006 4.40 —

Sources: Economic Associates (2007); World Bank. 2006a.

4. Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth, 1960–2006

It is now increasingly accepted in the development literature that leadership, policy making, the quality of economic policies, and good institutions play important roles in bringing about rapid growth in developing countries. In what follows, we shall analyze the differential effects of leadership, institutions, and policy making on economic growth during the dismal 1960–2000 period and during the successful 2001–06 period. It will be seen that good policy making and high quality economic policies during the 2001-2006 period largely accounts for the rapid growth during the period. In turn, good leadership largely accounts for the effective and consistently good economic policies during the period.

Leadership and Macroeconomic Policy Making, 1960–2000 Thirty of the first forty post-Independence years in Nigeria were spent under the heavy-handed rule of military dictators and despots. Much of the failure of policy and the lack of development have been attributed to the abnormal situation where a country was denied democracy and the rule of law, but rather was forcibly subjected to military misrule. Unfortunately, the quality of leadership was low as the military establishment was led by poorly educated and often ill-trained soldiers. During much of this period, there was the problem of ethno-religious violence and a vicious struggle for resource control. While oil resources were located in the South, the leaders (military and civilian) were usually from the North. These Northern leaders were bent on transferring the oil resources to develop the North. This regional redistribution syndrome resulted in an unending tribal and religious strife during most of the period. The development conundrum was exacerbated by the fact that many of the military rulers were corrupt. Thus, the nation’s oil resources were stolen when they were not misspent on “white elephant” projects in the Northern parts of the country.

The quality of economic policy making was also poor. Given the prevailing orthodoxy that industrialization was a prerequisite for rapid economic growth, the aim of government was to promote industry and manufacturing through


import substitution, using development planning. During 1962–85, the country used the approach of fixed medium-term plans. Four Development Plans were adopted and implemented:

• First National Development Plan, 1962–68 • Second National Development Plan, 1970–74 • Third National Development Plan, 1975–80 • Fourth National Development Plan, 1981-85

During the era of development programming, macroeconomic management policies were used as the key tools for achieving plan objectives. However, in the end, the policy of import-substituting industrialization failed. The discovery of oil and its predominant position after 1974 soon led to the relative neglect of agriculture. But, the oil boom only lasted until 1982.

With the end of the oil boom in 1982, Nigeria found itself in a quagmire of economic problems. The internal problems included recession, inflation, high unemployment, and rising fiscal deficits, while the external problems consisted of chronic current account and balance-of-payments deficits, an escalating external debt stock, and a crushing debt-service burden. There was also ample evidence of sectoral disequilibrium as demonstrated by the emasculation of the agricultural sector, the stunted development of the industrial sector, a lop-sided dependence on the oil sector, and the repression of the financial sector. Between 1982 and 1986, the government made a valiant attempt to combat the economic crisis by adopting various austerity measures as reflected particularly in the Economic Stabilization Act of 1982 and the National Economic Emergency Act of 1985. However, because of the fundamental nature of the economic and financial disequilibriums, the government found that mere austerity without structural adjustment constituted an inadequate response to the economic crisis. Matters came to a head in early 1986 when the world oil market collapsed and the price of oil fell by over 50 percent. With Nigeria's earnings from petroleum exports tumbling from approximately US$25 billion in 1980 to US$6.4 billion in 1986, trade arrears piling up, and international credit lines drying up, the nation was on the verge of economic collapse.

Accordingly, in July 1986, the government adopted the SAP in order to bring about a fundamental restructuring of the economy to ensure its long-term survival. Unfortunately, the SAP policy of economic liberalization and deregulation did not succeed, mainly as a result of poor implementation and policy inconsistency. In the manufacturing sector, there was weak supply response by private sector firms to the incentives offered by SAP policies. This limited response has been ascribed to several factors including, especially, the infrastructure deficit. Poor infrastructure availability, particularly in the power and transportation sectors, has militated strongly against private sector production. See table 7 for comparative infrastructure data for Nigeria, South Africa, and other sub-Saharan countries. An examination of the data shows that a

22 Milton A. Iyoha

wide gap exists between the availability of electricity in Nigeria (82 kilowatts per capita) and in South Africa (3,793 kilowatts per capita) (Okonjo-Iweala and Osafo-Kwaako, 2007). The problem of poor and directionless leadership also continued. Thus, in the end, economic growth performance during the liberalization period was only marginally different from what was recorded during the preceding period of economic controls. See table 8 for data on sectoral shares in output since 1960 and table 9 for sectoral annual growth rates in output, 1960–2006. Table 10 provides data on the exchange rate while table 11 gives data on the terms of trade.

Leadership, Policy Making, and Institutions: 2001–06 Apart from the sustained commodity export boom (as exemplified by skyrocketing oil prices) in the new millennium, the main explanation for the exemplary economic growth performance in Nigeria was leadership. Going hand-in-hand with improved leadership was the adoption and implementation of good economic policies (as exemplified by NEEDS). Some analysts question whether the Nigerian economic reforms are truly “home grown” as claimed by their architects. The issue is moot because while parts of the reform program are “orthodox”—conforming to Williamson’s “Washington Consensus”—the program was nevertheless adopted without prodding from the IMF or World Bank, and was not supported by a loan from either of the two famous Washington institutions. Although NEEDS has both state-level and local government–level components, it has yet to be as fully embraced by the subnational units as it has been embraced at the national level. It seems clear that economic reform is more likely to promote sustainable growth over time if it is also enthusiastically implemented at the subnational level. Thus, a priority of any future government should be the extension of these economic reforms to the subnational units. Table 7: Selected Data on Infrastructure

Nigeria South Africa SSA LIC HIC

Electric power consumption kW per capita (2001)

82 3,793 456 317 8,421

Road-to-population ratio 1,000 km per million people (1995–2001)

1.1 8.5 2.6 — —

Paved primary roads—percent of roads (1995-2001)

30.9 20.3 13.5 1,692.9

Telephone—mainlines per 1,000 people (2002) 6 107 15 28 585 Access to sanitation—percent of population

(2000) 54 87 54 43 —

Access to safe water—percent of population (2000)

62 86 58 76 —

Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators (various years).


Table 8: Sectoral Shares in Output (%), 1960–2006

Year Agriculture Industry Manufacturing Services 1960 63.85 7.68 3.81 28.47 1961 61.83 8.29 4.10 29.88 1962 61.92 8.76 4.41 29.32 1963 61.20 9.03 4.66 29.73 1964 57.88 9.67 4.69 32.45 1965 54.90 12.47 5.43 32.64 1966 54.94 12.32 5.38 32.74 1967 55.40 11.78 5.50 32.81 1968 51.65 10.79 5.65 37.56 1969 49.49 15.56 6.35 34.95 Average 1960–69

57.31

10.64

5.00

32.06

Agriculture Industry Manufacturing Services

1970 41.28 13.76 3.67 44.95 1971 40.04 17.34 3.38 42.61 1972 38.27 19.94 3.90 41.79 1973 35.14 25.09 4.04 39.78 1974 31.83 35.24 3.33 32.93 1975 31.73 28.50 5.03 39.77 1976 29.12 32.27 5.06 38.60 1977 29.57 31.42 4.57 39.01 1978 30.48 33.33 6.53 36.18 1979 28.65 37.82 8.79 33.52

Average 1970–79

33.61

27.47

4.83

38.91


33.40

33.65

8.19

32.95

(Table continues on next page)

24 Milton A. Iyoha

Table 8 (continued)


31.11

46.34 5.01 22.54

Agriculture Industry Manufacturing Services 2000 28.81 43.55 4.01 27.63 2001 30.60 47.78 3.89 21.62 2002 31.18 43.80 4.58 25.02 2003 26.41 49.37 3.99 24.21 2004 16.61 56.93 3.68 26.45 2005 16.9 56.2 3.79 26.9 2006 17.5 54.0 3.79 28.4 Average 2000–06

24.0

50.2

4.12

25.75

Sources: World Bank (1999, 2006); (ii) Economist Conferences (2007). Note: Shares may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding.


Table 9: Sectoral Annual Growth Rates (%), 1960–2006

Year Agriculture Industry Manufacturing Services 1960 1961 –3.0 29.6 18.8 –1.9 1962 3.6 18.3 12.4 0.9 1963 8.3 14.5 29.1 8.6 1964 –0.4 18.8 –4.2 5.8 1965 0.6 49.6 –28.3 –4.7 1966 –7.0 9.1 70.6 –4.6 1967 –15.5 –20.0 –14.3 –12.1 1968 –1.5 –19.9 5.5 9.2 1969 15.0 79.3 31.5 7.9 1970 17.5 54.4 27.9 20.8 1971 5.2 32.9 –3.1 8.5 1972 –7.3 19.3 23.9 3.3 1973 8.9 –1.2 11.3 13.5 1974 10.4 17.2 –3.3 8.2 1975 –10.4 –13.7 23.6 20.6 1976 –1.6 23.5 23.4 5.4 1977 6.8 5.0 –49.6 7.0 1978 –8.6 –3.7 13.7 –5.7 1979 –3.0 18.9 46.9 2.4 1980 4.9 –2.2 28.1 5.1 1981 –16.5 –10.1 15.1 –5.7 1982 2.5 –4.2 12.9 2.5 1983 –0.3 –14.7 –29.4 2.8 1984 –4.8 –0.5 –11.2 –11.1 1985 16.8 5.3 19.9 6.2 1986 9.2 –5.7 –3.9 7.3 1987 –3.2 –2.9 5.1 6.1 1988 9.8 9.9 12.8 10.0 1989 4.9 9.0 1.6 8.6 1990 4.2 6.3 7.6 15.0 1991 3.5 8.6 9.3 2.1 1992 2.1 0.3 –4.8 6.9 1993 1.4 –0.8 1.2 5.4 1994 2.4 –2.8 1.6 0.5 1995 3.7 1.2 4.6 2.3 1996 4.1 6.0 2.4 3.0 1997 4.2 1.5 0.9 4.9 1998 4.0 –1.7 –5.4 1.8 1999 5.2 –2.5 2.1 0.7 2000 2.9 6.1 3.5 4.0 2001 3.8 2.6 5.2 3.3 2002 4.2 –8.0 13.7 6.6 2003 6.5 22.4 6.2 6.9 2004 6.5 4.6 3.7 6.9 2005 8.2 4.8 3.9 6.5 2006 8.0 0.1 –1.4 10.5 Sources: World Bank (1999, 2006); (ii) Economist Conferences (2007).

26 Milton A. Iyoha

Table 10: Exchange Rate, 1965–2006

Year Exchange

rate Year Exchange

rate Year Exchange

rate 1965 0.7142 1979 0.6040 1993 22.0654 1966 0.7142 1980 0.5468 1994 21.9960 1967 0.7142 1981 0.6177 1995 21.8953 1968 0.7142 1982 0.6735 1996 21.8844 1969 0.7142 1983 0.7244 1997 21.8861 1970 0.7142 1984 0.7665 1998 21.8861 1971 0.7142 1985 0.8938 1999 92.3381 1972 0.6579 1986 1.7545 2000 101.6973 1973 0.6579 1987 4.0160 2001 111.2312 1974 0.6302 1988 4.5370 2002 120.5782 1975 0.6155 1989 7.3647 2003 129.2224 1976 0.6266 1990 8.0383 2004 132.888 1977 0.6447 1991 9.9094 2005 131.300 1978 0.6353 1992 17.2984 2006 127.400 Sources: World Bank (1999, 2006); (ii) Economist Conferences (2007).

Table 11: Terms of Trade, 1980–2005

Year Terms of trade Year Terms of trade 1980 181.25 1993 59.41 1981 192.00 1994 56.12 1982 163.63 1995 55.56 1983 155.17 1996 86.90 1984 154.54 1997 65.09 1985 143.48 1998 43.88 1986 70.27 1999 59.60 1987 72.60 2000 100.00 1988 60.94 2001 88.90 1989 75.71 2002 89.92 1990 88.51 2003 101.94 1991 74.39 2004 122.35 1992 65.04 2005 125.00 Sources: World Bank (2006a,c).

Good governance and institution building have also been part of the

Nigerian success story. The Obasanjo government introduced a “fiscal rule” to delink public expenditures from oil revenue earnings, thus effectively insulating the domestic economy from internationally transmitted business cycles. An attempt is being made to institutionalize this by passing a Fiscal Responsibility Act. Other useful reforms in this area were the establishment of a due process mechanism for public procurement and the adoption of the EITI as a means of promoting transparency in the oil and gas sector. Two anti-corruption agencies, the ICPC and EFCC, were also established to promote accountability and good


governance. It may well be true that without good governance, other reforms have limited impact. This is so because good governance includes issues like the absence of rent-seeking behavior, transparency, accountability, proper enforcement of property rights, and the rule of law. Good governance thus plays a critical role in attracting investment to a country, improving productivity and competitiveness, promoting political stability, and in the end contributing to rapid economic growth.

5. Summary and Concluding Remarks

Let us conclude this study of Nigeria’s growth experience by referring briefly to a resource-rich African country at the other end of the growth tables. Botswana reported an average real GDP growth rate of 11 percent between 1982 and 1989 and 7.5 percent between 1990 and 2000. Nigeria grew at 3.7 percent between 1960 and 2000. Thus, Nigeria’s average real GDP growth rate was one third that of Botswana in the 1980s and one half that of Botswana in the 1990s. But Nigeria’s average growth rate of 7 percent between 2003 and 2006 is close to what was reported by Botswana during the 1990–2000 decade. This buttresses the belief of many that given Nigeria’s abundant human and natural resources, its average growth rate could approximate that reported by Botswana if good macroeconomic policies are consistently implemented. An examination of table 12 shows that Nigeria’s average per capita real income growth compares favorably with the world average during the 2001–06 period but was well below the world average during the 1960–2000 period. Table 13 provides data indicating that the primary sector contributed 50.6 percent to GDP growth during the 2001–05 period but is expected to contribute 64.9 percent to GDP growth during the 2006–10 period. In contrast, the secondary sector, which contributed 16 percent to GDP growth during the 2001–05 period, will contribute only 6.5 percent to GDP growth during the 2006–10 period. Table 12: Comparative Real Per Capita GDP Growth Rates

1980–2000 2001–05 World 2.2 3.1 Developing countries 2.4 5.1 Emerging market economies 2.6 5.0 Industrial countries 2.1 1.4 Nigeria 0.4* 4.2+ Source: IMF World Economic Outlook Database (September 2006) and author’s calculations. Note: * 1960–2000; + 2003-2006.

28 Milton A. Iyoha

Table 13: Growth Outlook, Sectoral Contribution to GDP Growth (%)

Economic sector 2001–05 2006–10 Primary 50.6 64.9

Crops 35.5 39.8 Oil & gas 11.1 21.7 Livestock 2.4 2.1 Fishing 1.6 1.3

Secondary 16.0 6.5 Electricity 8.5 3.2 Manufacturing 5.2 2.9 Construction 2.3 0.4

Tertiary 33.7 22.4 Wholesale & retail trade 16.3 10.5 Financial institutions 7.6 4.0 Telecommunications 4.4 4.5 Road transport 3.9 2.1 Real estate 1.5 1.3

Sources: 2001–05, Bureau for National Statistics; 2006–10 forecasts, Economic Associates (2007).

Finally, note that the manufacturing sector is still very weak. While it contributed 5.2 percent to GDP growth in the 2001–05 period, it is expected to contribute only 2.9 percent to GDP growth during the 2006–10 period. Clearly then, policy makers still have a lot of work to do in order to significantly increase the contribution of manufacturing to GDP and GDP growth in Nigeria.

Why, then, did Nigeria fail to develop between 1960 and 2000 in spite of the huge amount of petrodollars it received starting in the early 1970s? The simple answer is that Nigeria’s petrodollars were misused, misspent, and mislaid. As proximate causes for these outcomes, we have stressed in particular poor leadership and governance combined with ineffective macroeconomic policies during the 1960–2000 period. Also important was the acute regional ethno-religious rivalry in the polity. The issue of poor leadership and governance should not be underplayed because during most of the first 40 years after Independence, Nigeria was governed by leaders excessively motivated by narrow ethnic and sectional loyalties and lacking the intellect required to develop viable strategies for sustained growth and development in a pluralistic and multiethnic country like Nigeria. In short Nigeria did not have a pro-development leadership in its first 40 years of existence. As has been argued, the situation has changed for the better since 2000. If this goes on, Nigeria has a chance finally to take its place among the rapidly growing countries of the world.


It is now accepted in the development orthodoxy that policies can matter profoundly for development outcomes. In this chapter, we have argued that by and large, between 1960 and 2000, Nigeria’s policy choices were poor, and the reforms that sought to correct them starting in the mid-1980s were plagued by inconsistencies, reversals, and a general lack of policy coherence. In contrast, the reforms adopted in 2003 were consistent and an attempt has been made to implement them in a coherent manner. The main difference has been a focused and committed leadership

During the last few decades of the twentieth century, uncertainty in the Nigerian economy was brought about as much by social and political instability as by macroeconomic policy errors. A case in point was the early 1990s, when the nullification of presidential election results by General Babangida brought about an acute political crisis and proved a harbinger of major policy reversals. Deeper institutional problems of governance still remain, including a lack of grassroots participation in politics, malfunctioning formal political institutions, and inadequacy of democratic structures. Resolution of these stubborn social and political problems will go a long way to reducing perceived uncertainty and increasing confidence in the stability of the Nigerian economy. In turn, this will clear the way for a return of flight capital and an increase in both domestic and foreign investment, and the sustenance of rapid economic growth in the years ahead.

30 Milton A. Iyoha

References

Ajayi, S.I. 2000. “Capital Flight and External Debt in Nigeria.” In S.I. Ajayi and M.S. Khan, eds., External Debt and Capital Flight in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.

Bello-Imam, I. B., and M. I. Obadan. 2004. Democratic Governance and Development Management in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, 1999-2003. Ibadan: Centre for Local Government and Rural Development Studies.

Bevan, D., P. Collier, and J.W. Gunning. 1999. The Political Economy of Poverty and Growth. Nigeria & Indonesia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 1992. “Nigeria: 1970–1990.” International Center for Economic Growth, Budapest, Hungary.

Central Bank of Nigeria. 2002. Annual Report and Statement of Accounts. Abuja.

———. 2000. The changing structure of the Nigerian economy and implications for development. Abuja.

Collier, P., and S. A. O’Connell. 2006. “Opportunities and Choices.” AERC Explaining African Economic Growth Project, June.

Desai, R.M., A. Olofsgard, and T.M. Yousef. 2007. “The Logic of Authoritarian Bargains: A Test of a Structural Model.” Working Paper #3. Brookings Global Economy and Development. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Economic Associates. 2007. Economic Outlook in 2007. Lagos.

Economist Conferences. 2007. Third Business Roundtable with the Government of Nigeria. Abuja.

Ekpo, A. H., and E. U. Ubok-Udom. 2003. Issues in Fiscal Federalism and Revenue Allocation in Nigeria. Uyo State, Nigeria: University of Uyo.

Federal Government of Nigeria. 1986. Structural Adjustment Programme for Nigeria, July 1986-June 1988. Lagos.

Fosu, A. K. 2008. “Anti-Growth Syndromes in Africa: A Synthesis of the Case Studies.” In Benno J. Ndulu et al., eds., The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960–2000, Vol 1. Cambridge University Press.

Gavin, M. 1993. “Adjusting to a Terms of Trade Shock: Nigeria, 1972–88.” In R. Dornbusch, ed., Policymaking in the Open Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 172–219.


Iyoha, M. A. 2003. “Assessment of Nigeria’s Economic Performance since 1960.” In M.A. Iyoha and C.O. Itsede, eds., Nigerian Economy: Structure, Growth and Development. Benin City: Mindex Publishing Company, Ltd.

———. 1996. “Macroeconomic Policy Management of Nigeria’s External Sector in the Post-SAP Period.” Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies 38(1), March.

———. 1995. “Economic Liberalization and the External Sector.” In A. Iwayemi, ed., Macroeconomic Policy Issues in an Open Developing Economy. Ibadan: NCEMA.

Iyoha, M. A., and D. E. Oriakhi. 2008. “Explaining African Economic Growth Performance: The Case of Nigeria.” In Benno J. Ndulu et al., eds., The Political Economy of Economic Growth in Africa, 1960–2000, Vol. 2, Country Case Studies. Cambridge University Press.

Lal, D. 1999. Financial Times, October.

Matsuyama, K. 1992. “Agricultural Productivity, Comparative Advantage, and Economic Growth.” Journal of Economic Theory 58 (December): 317–22.

O’Connell, S. A., and B. J. Ndulu. 2001. “Africa’s Growth Experience: A Focus on Sources of Growth.” Framework Paper for the AERC Explaining African Economic Growth Project.

Okojie, C. E. E. 2003. “Development planning in Nigeria since Independence.” In M.A. Iyoha and C.O. Itsede, eds., Nigerian Economy: Structure, Growth and Development. Benin City: Mindex Publishing Company, Ltd.

Okonjo-Iweala, N. and P. Osafo-Kwaako. 2007. “Nigeria’s Economic Reforms: Progress and Challenges.” Working Paper #6. Brookings Global Economy and Development. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Sachs, J., and A. Warner. 2001. “Natural Resources and Economic Development: The Curse of Natural Resources.” European Economic Review 45: 827–38.

Serven, L., and A. Solimano. 1992. “Private Investment and Macroeconomic Adjustment: A Survey.” The World Bank Research Observer 7(1), January.

Suberu, R. T. 2001. Federalism and Ethnic Conflict in Nigeria. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Udeh, J. 2000. “Petroleum Revenue Management: The Nigerian Perspective.” Paper presented at World Bank/IFC Petroleum Revenue Management Workshop, Washington, D.C., October 23–24.

Usman, N. E. 2007. “The Nigerian Economy in 2007: Prospects and Challenges.” Paper presented to the Economist’s Third Business Roundtable with the Government of Nigeria. Abuja.

32 Milton A. Iyoha

Williamson, J. 2003. “From Reform Agenda to Damaged Brand Name.” Finance and Development 40(3), September.

World Bank. 2006a. The Little Data Book on Africa. Washington, D.C.: World Bank

———. 2006b. Nigeria: Competitiveness and Growth. Report No. 36483-NG. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

———. 2006c. World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: World Bank

———. 1999. World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

———. 2005. World Bank Africa Database CD-ROM 2004. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Eco-Audit

Environmental Benefits Statement The Commission on Growth and Development is committed to preserving endangered forests and natural resources. The World Bank’s Office of the Publisher has chosen to print these Working Papers on 100 percent postconsumer recycled paper, processed chlorine free, in accordance with the recommended standards for paper usage set by Green Press Initiative—a nonprofit program supporting publishers in using fiber that is not sourced from endangered forests. For more information, visit www.greenpressinitiative.org. The printing of all the Working Papers in this Series on recycled paper saved the following:

Trees* Solid Waste Water Net Greenhouse Gases Total Energy

48 2,247 17,500 4,216 33 mil. *40 inches in

height and 6–8 inches in diameter

Pounds Gallons Pounds CO2 Equivalent BTUs

The Commission on Growth and Development Working Paper Series

8. Leadership for Growth, Development, and Poverty Reduction: An African Viewpoint and Experience, by Benjamin William Mkapa, April 2008 9. Growth Strategies for Africa, by Paul Collier, April 2008 10. The Role of Institutions in Growth and Development, by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, April 2008 11. Finance, Financial Sector Policies, and Long-Run Growth, by Asli Demirgüç-Kunt and Ross Levine, April 2008 12. Cities: Engines of Growth and Prosperity for Developing Countries? by Gilles Duranton, April 2008 13. Housing Policy in Developing Countries: The Importance of the Informal Economy, by Richard Arnott, April 2008 14. Economic Growth in Egypt: Impediments and Constraints (1974–2004), by Hazem El Beblawi, April 2008 15. Battles Half Won: The Political Economy of India’s Growth and Economic Policy since Independence, by Sadiq Ahmed and Ashutosh Varshney, April 2008. 16. Spatial Inequality and Economic Development: Theories, Facts, and Policies, by Sukkoo Kim, April 2008. 17. Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African Countries: The Case of Nigeria, by Milton A. Iyoha, April 2008

Forthcoming Papers in the Series: Rethinking Economic Growth in a Globalizing World: An Economic Geography Lens, by Anthony J. Venables

(April 2008)Urbanization, Agglomeration, and Economic Development, by John M. Quigley (April 2008)

Electronic copies of the working papers in this series are available online at www.growthcommission.org.

They can also be requested by sending an e-mail to [email protected].




Milton A. Iyoha

WORKING PAPER NO.17

www.growthcommission.org

[email protected]

Commission on Growth and Development Montek AhluwaliaEdmar BachaDr. BoedionoLord John Browne Kemal DervisAlejandro FoxleyGoh Chok TongHan Duck-sooDanuta HübnerCarin JämtinPedro-Pablo KuczynskiDanny Leipziger, Vice ChairTrevor ManuelMahmoud MohieldinNgozi N. Okonjo-IwealaRobert RubinRobert SolowMichael Spence, ChairSir K. Dwight VennerErnesto ZedilloZhou Xiaochuan

The mandate of the Commission on Growth and Development is to gather the best understanding there is about the policies and strategies that underlie rapid economic growth and poverty reduction.

The Commission’s audience is the leaders of developing countries. The Commission is supported by the governments of Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and The World Bank Group.

Nigeria’s long-run growth performance has been extremely poor. Between 1960 and 2000, real income per capita grew at only 0.43 percent per year.

The situation improved between 2001 and 2006 when real per capita GDP grew at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent. This paper demonstrates that between 1960 and 2000, Nigeria’s policy choices were poor, and the reforms that sought to correct them were plagued by inconsistencies, policy reversals, and lack of coherence. In contrast, due to good leadership, the reforms adopted in 2003 were consistent and have been implemented in a coherent manner. The improved performance of the economy after 2003 arose from implementing a comprehensive economic reform program focusing on four main areas: Macroeconomic Reform; Structural Reform; Governance and Institutional Reform; and Public Sector Reform. The reforms, backstopped by improved oil revenue management, monetary policy implementa-tion, and debt management, improved overall macroeconomic policy making. This resulted in real GDP growth averaging 7.1 percent per year between 2003 and 2006, an infl ation rate of 10 percent in 2006, foreign exchange reserves of US$45 billion in 2006, and total external debt of only US$5 billion in 2006.

Milton A. Iyoha, Professor of Economics, University of Benin


Documents

Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African ...documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/...Leadership, Policy Making, and Economic Growth in African Countries: The Case of